WILLIE DOYLE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; ENNIS LEE KIMBRELL, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; THOMAS EDWARD BASSHAM, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case reviews the admissibility of evidence seized following arrests for vagrancy. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the arrests and subsequent seizures were lawful.
Yes, the arrests for vagrancy were lawful, and the items seized incident to those arrests were admissible.
“The defendants contend that certain items which were admitted into evidence over their objections were the product of a search and seizure made subsequent to an unlawful arrest and therefore were inadmissible at trial.”
This quote outlines the central argument of the appellants regarding the admissibility of seized evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were arrested for vagrancy. Following their arrests, certain items were seized and admitted into evidence at trial over their objections. T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lawful Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants contend that certain items which were admitted into evidence over their objections were the product of a search and seizure made subsequent to an unlawful arrest and therefore were inadmissible at trial.
Several times before this court has upheld arrests made pursuant to Florida’s vagrancy statute. See Echols v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 89; Sutherland v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 236; Rinehart v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 487. We find that the facts in the instant case place it within the realm established by the above-mentioned cases, and that the defendants’ arrest for vagrancy was lawful. Since the arrest was legal then the seizure made incident thereto was also legal and the items seized were admissible. Ball v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 56.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Blanco, 339 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…er had reasonable grounds to believe that appellant was connected with the lottery activities based on his prior knowledge of appellant. Furthermore evidence seized incident to a proper arrest is not subject to suppression. E. g., Williams v. State, 210 So. 2d 497 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). See Section 901.21, Florida Statutes. An arrest was proper in the case before us since probable cause existed to believe ap-pellee was committing a misdemeanor in the presence of an officer. Section 901.15, Florida Statutes. The e…
Authorities Cited
- Rinehart v. State, 114 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Echols v. State, 201 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Heath v. State, 167 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- In re Est. of Rosella M. Sager, 201 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Ball v. State, 191 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)